![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Altruism/Free Will/Twilight
Aug. 5th, 2012 04:57 pmI occasionally write in my paper journal still. Not nearly as much as I write here (which also isn't much of anything lately), but I thought I'd post it here too, slightly edited.
I watched a program (this program for those who are curious) that detailed the story of a mathematician (George R. Price) who, upon learning of evolutionary theory applied to social behavior, subsequently discovered a theorem that proves altruism is a trait strictly devoted to survival. The theorem was published, but then the man was so disturbed by the thought of altruism being driven by self-interest that he set out to prove it wrong by attempting to live a completely selfless life. Upon finding no way to prove or disprove such selflessness as being connected to any sort of egoism (as it was nearly impossible to prove such motivation even if it appears altruistic on its face), the man committed suicide.
It's an interesting paradox. On the one hand, it makes sense. You do good things to better your surroundings or make yourself or someone else feel good or whatever else, and it all leads back to self-interest. Even if you die saving someone else or perform another incredible act of bravery, it means genes live on (and you or your family reaps the rewards of such "kindness", thus helping their survival too). You've snuffed yourself but offered someone else's genes survival. On the other hand, it renders human kindness into a cold, calculated evolutionary goal, as if every nice thing you or anyone else has done is really all a ploy to make sure we all live to see another day in one form or another. It's a hard pill to swallow even if it does make sense-- a depressing take on what human beings really are at their core even if they think of themselves quite differently.
It made me think of the divide between free will and determinism, which I haven't parsed in some time, probably because it's another impossible riddle. In terms of religious tenets, it appears ludicrously hypocritical to me to imagine an all-powerful creator who also managed to impart free will on all us lowly subjects. It goes back to the silly question of a God being so all-encompassingly powerful that he can make a rock even he can't lift. It's ridiculous but also a fitting image for these issues of the mind and heart. If an all-powerful being set everything in motion and knows everything we're going to do before we do it, how is it possible that we are responsible for anything we do? In such an extreme, we have absolutely no power over what fate has thrust upon us, only that we're alive. On the other hand, free will breeds responsibility through choice in a system that is not pre-determined. On the contrary, it is chaotic and connection-less. Our actions have consequences, and we can effect change for good or ill. In such a system, we can't help but order (or mess up) our own lives and hope that somewhere in that chaos, we arrive at the right place. (Then again, the champion of free will theory was Sartre, and from what I've read, that guy was an asshole.)
Neither extreme is satisfying, but no one has come up with a foolproof theory concerning the middle ground of soft-determinism-- that heady divide between the two where free will works either inside a system of determinism or hand and hand or who knows how (that I know of anyway; I admit to being behind on current arguments in this realm). All I know is it's an interesting (if not frustrating) question. I suppose altruism is a different paradox, but that's what it reminded me of-- another problem I have no solution to.
...
On a different note, I got my hair cut today. I had a conversation with the woman cutting my hair that went something like this:
"What do you do?"
"Oh, I work for the legislature reading legal documents."
"Oh wow, like, all day? I couldn't do that. My eyes start burning when I read."
"Yeah, pretty much all day. Session is coming up, so that'll be interesting again. Lots of hours."
"Session?"
"Yeah, like where they pass all the bills into law."
"Oh, well do you get paid by the hour? That probably makes it worth it. People think I'm making it up when I say my eyes start hurting when I read, but it's true."
"Oh yeah, it definitely happens to some people, I've heard."
"Like my mom thought I was always making excuses, but it's true! Especially now that I'm out of school, it's a little easier for people to believe. It's funny though, because reading makes you smarter. My dad reads all the time and knows like five languages."
"Wow."
"Yeah, I wonder sometimes how we can hang out because we have nothing in common. Then again, when I was a junior in high school, I got really into reading those stupid Twilight books, like, read all of them really fast, and my GPA was a 3.8 where before it had been a 2.5. Kind of crazy."
"Yeah."
Not that I'm slamming this woman. She was really nice and good at cutting hair (also seemed really young, though that just might be me feeling old), but wow. Just wow.
I watched a program (this program for those who are curious) that detailed the story of a mathematician (George R. Price) who, upon learning of evolutionary theory applied to social behavior, subsequently discovered a theorem that proves altruism is a trait strictly devoted to survival. The theorem was published, but then the man was so disturbed by the thought of altruism being driven by self-interest that he set out to prove it wrong by attempting to live a completely selfless life. Upon finding no way to prove or disprove such selflessness as being connected to any sort of egoism (as it was nearly impossible to prove such motivation even if it appears altruistic on its face), the man committed suicide.
It's an interesting paradox. On the one hand, it makes sense. You do good things to better your surroundings or make yourself or someone else feel good or whatever else, and it all leads back to self-interest. Even if you die saving someone else or perform another incredible act of bravery, it means genes live on (and you or your family reaps the rewards of such "kindness", thus helping their survival too). You've snuffed yourself but offered someone else's genes survival. On the other hand, it renders human kindness into a cold, calculated evolutionary goal, as if every nice thing you or anyone else has done is really all a ploy to make sure we all live to see another day in one form or another. It's a hard pill to swallow even if it does make sense-- a depressing take on what human beings really are at their core even if they think of themselves quite differently.
It made me think of the divide between free will and determinism, which I haven't parsed in some time, probably because it's another impossible riddle. In terms of religious tenets, it appears ludicrously hypocritical to me to imagine an all-powerful creator who also managed to impart free will on all us lowly subjects. It goes back to the silly question of a God being so all-encompassingly powerful that he can make a rock even he can't lift. It's ridiculous but also a fitting image for these issues of the mind and heart. If an all-powerful being set everything in motion and knows everything we're going to do before we do it, how is it possible that we are responsible for anything we do? In such an extreme, we have absolutely no power over what fate has thrust upon us, only that we're alive. On the other hand, free will breeds responsibility through choice in a system that is not pre-determined. On the contrary, it is chaotic and connection-less. Our actions have consequences, and we can effect change for good or ill. In such a system, we can't help but order (or mess up) our own lives and hope that somewhere in that chaos, we arrive at the right place. (Then again, the champion of free will theory was Sartre, and from what I've read, that guy was an asshole.)
Neither extreme is satisfying, but no one has come up with a foolproof theory concerning the middle ground of soft-determinism-- that heady divide between the two where free will works either inside a system of determinism or hand and hand or who knows how (that I know of anyway; I admit to being behind on current arguments in this realm). All I know is it's an interesting (if not frustrating) question. I suppose altruism is a different paradox, but that's what it reminded me of-- another problem I have no solution to.
...
On a different note, I got my hair cut today. I had a conversation with the woman cutting my hair that went something like this:
"What do you do?"
"Oh, I work for the legislature reading legal documents."
"Oh wow, like, all day? I couldn't do that. My eyes start burning when I read."
"Yeah, pretty much all day. Session is coming up, so that'll be interesting again. Lots of hours."
"Session?"
"Yeah, like where they pass all the bills into law."
"Oh, well do you get paid by the hour? That probably makes it worth it. People think I'm making it up when I say my eyes start hurting when I read, but it's true."
"Oh yeah, it definitely happens to some people, I've heard."
"Like my mom thought I was always making excuses, but it's true! Especially now that I'm out of school, it's a little easier for people to believe. It's funny though, because reading makes you smarter. My dad reads all the time and knows like five languages."
"Wow."
"Yeah, I wonder sometimes how we can hang out because we have nothing in common. Then again, when I was a junior in high school, I got really into reading those stupid Twilight books, like, read all of them really fast, and my GPA was a 3.8 where before it had been a 2.5. Kind of crazy."
"Yeah."
Not that I'm slamming this woman. She was really nice and good at cutting hair (also seemed really young, though that just might be me feeling old), but wow. Just wow.
